Second District · New York

Research Briefing

2026-08-09 · research material only, not submission content
Unemployment Rate
4.10
▼ 0.10 vs prior
Fed Funds Effective Rate
3.63
— 0.00 vs prior
10-Year Treasury Yield
4.69
▲ 0.06 vs prior
Empire State Mfg Survey
15.60
▲ 9.90 vs prior

Dual Mandate Spotlight

Inflation and employment -- this is what the contest is actually judging you on. Everything else in this briefing is supporting context.

Inflation

Actual vs. expected: This reading is running +1.73 pts above the Fed's 2.0% target. Markets are currently pricing in average inflation of 2.22% over 5 years and 2.25% over 10 years (Treasury breakeven rates). Households surveyed by the University of Michigan expect 4.6% inflation over the next year. These are the legitimate free stand-ins for a 'consensus forecast' -- real Wall Street consensus data is paid/licensed and not available here.
Actual vs. expected: This reading is running +0.81 pts above the Fed's 2.0% target. Markets are currently pricing in average inflation of 2.22% over 5 years and 2.25% over 10 years (Treasury breakeven rates). Households surveyed by the University of Michigan expect 4.6% inflation over the next year. These are the legitimate free stand-ins for a 'consensus forecast' -- real Wall Street consensus data is paid/licensed and not available here.
Actual vs. expected: This reading is running +1.67 pts above the Fed's 2.0% target. Markets are currently pricing in average inflation of 2.22% over 5 years and 2.25% over 10 years (Treasury breakeven rates). Households surveyed by the University of Michigan expect 4.6% inflation over the next year. These are the legitimate free stand-ins for a 'consensus forecast' -- real Wall Street consensus data is paid/licensed and not available here.
Actual vs. expected: This reading is running +1.29 pts above the Fed's 2.0% target. Markets are currently pricing in average inflation of 2.22% over 5 years and 2.25% over 10 years (Treasury breakeven rates). Households surveyed by the University of Michigan expect 4.6% inflation over the next year. These are the legitimate free stand-ins for a 'consensus forecast' -- real Wall Street consensus data is paid/licensed and not available here.

Labor Market

Actual vs. expected: No free live consensus-forecast source exists for this series, so as a naive baseline: the prior period was 4.2 (2026-06-01), actual came in at 4.1 (-0.1). That's a baseline, not a real forecast -- for an actual economist consensus, see the Philly Fed's quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters (philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/spf-release-dates).
Actual vs. expected: No free live consensus-forecast source exists for this series, so as a naive baseline: the prior period was 7.9 (2026-06-01), actual came in at 7.9 (+0.0). That's a baseline, not a real forecast -- for an actual economist consensus, see the Philly Fed's quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters (philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/spf-release-dates).
Actual vs. expected: No free live consensus-forecast source exists for this series, so as a naive baseline: the prior period was 158881.0 (2026-06-01), actual came in at 158858.0 (-23.0). That's a baseline, not a real forecast -- for an actual economist consensus, see the Philly Fed's quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters (philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/spf-release-dates).
Actual vs. expected: No free live consensus-forecast source exists for this series, so as a naive baseline: the prior period was 37.6 (2026-06-01), actual came in at 37.62 (+0.02). That's a baseline, not a real forecast -- for an actual economist consensus, see the Philly Fed's quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters (philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/spf-release-dates).
Actual vs. expected: No free live consensus-forecast source exists for this series, so as a naive baseline: the prior period was 61.5 (2026-06-01), actual came in at 61.4 (-0.1). That's a baseline, not a real forecast -- for an actual economist consensus, see the Philly Fed's quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters (philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/spf-release-dates).
Actual vs. expected: No free live consensus-forecast source exists for this series, so as a naive baseline: the prior period was 198000.0 (2026-07-25), actual came in at 199000.0 (+1000.0). That's a baseline, not a real forecast -- for an actual economist consensus, see the Philly Fed's quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters (philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/spf-release-dates).
What do these mean?
Headline CPI
The Consumer Price Index measures how much prices changed for a broad basket of goods and services a typical household buys. It includes food and energy, which swing around a lot month to month -- so headline CPI can jump on an oil price spike even if underlying inflation hasn't moved. Still the number most news headlines mean by 'inflation.'
Core CPI
Same as CPI but with food and energy stripped out, since those two categories are volatile for reasons that have little to do with monetary policy (a hurricane hitting oil refineries isn't something the Fed can fix with interest rates). Core CPI is the better read on the *underlying* inflation trend.
Headline PCE
The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index. Similar idea to CPI -- tracks price changes -- but it updates its basket of goods more often and covers a wider set of spending (including costs paid on someone's behalf, like employer-provided health insurance). Economists generally consider it a more accurate cost-of-living measure than CPI.
Core PCE (Fed's preferred gauge)
PCE with food and energy excluded. This specific number is what the FOMC means when it talks about its 2% inflation target -- if you cite only one inflation figure in your presentation, judges will expect it to be this one, or for you to explain why you chose something else.
Unemployment Rate (U-3)
The 'headline' unemployment rate: the share of people actively looking for work who haven't found any. It's the number everyone quotes, but it misses people who gave up looking (they're not counted as unemployed at all) and people stuck in part-time jobs who want full-time work.
Broader Unemployment (U-6)
A wider measure that adds in those two groups U-3 misses: discouraged workers who stopped looking, and people working part-time only because full-time work isn't available. U-6 running much higher than U-3 can be a sign the labor market is weaker than the headline number suggests.
Nonfarm Payrolls
The net number of jobs added or lost across the economy in a month (farm work is excluded because it's seasonal in a way that distorts the count). This is one of the single most-watched releases in all of economics -- big surprises here can move markets within seconds.
Avg Hourly Earnings
How fast wages are growing. Matters because the Fed worries about a 'wage-price spiral' -- workers demand higher pay to keep up with prices, employers raise prices to cover the higher pay, repeat. Fast wage growth alongside high inflation is a hawkish signal; wage growth cooling toward ~3-3.5% is often read as consistent with the 2% inflation target.
Labor Force Participation
The share of working-age people who are either employed or actively job-hunting. This is what separates 'fewer people are unemployed' from 'fewer people are even trying to work' -- a falling unemployment rate looks great until you check whether it's because people left the labor force entirely.
Initial Jobless Claims
New unemployment insurance claims filed each week. Because it's weekly instead of monthly, it's the earliest read you'll get on labor market turning points -- claims tend to tick up before the monthly unemployment rate does. Watch the 4-week average rather than any single week, since weekly data is noisy (holidays, weather, one-off layoffs).

National Indicators

FRED, most recent observation per series.

IndicatorLatestValueChange
CPI (All Urban Consumers) 2026-06-01 332.57 ▼ 1.41
Core PCE Price Index 2026-06-01 130.27 ▲ 0.17
Unemployment Rate 2026-07-01 4.10 ▼ 0.10
Nonfarm Payrolls 2026-07-01 158,858.00 ▼ 23.00
Real GDP 2026-04-01 24,270.60 ▲ 90.18
Fed Funds Effective Rate 2026-07-01 3.63 — 0.00
10-Year Treasury Yield 2026-08-06 4.69 ▲ 0.06
2-Year Treasury Yield 2026-08-06 4.25 ▲ 0.07
Initial Jobless Claims 2026-08-01 199,000.00 ▲ 1,000.00
University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment 2026-06-01 49.50 ▲ 4.70
Empire State Mfg Survey (General Business Conditions) 2026-07-01 15.60 ▲ 9.90
What do these mean?
CPI (All Urban Consumers)
Same series as Headline CPI above.
Core PCE Price Index
Same series as Core PCE above.
Unemployment Rate
Same series as Unemployment Rate (U-3) above.
Nonfarm Payrolls
The net number of jobs added or lost across the economy in a month (farm work is excluded because it's seasonal in a way that distorts the count). This is one of the single most-watched releases in all of economics -- big surprises here can move markets within seconds.
Real GDP
Total value of everything the economy produced, adjusted for inflation so you're comparing actual output, not just rising prices. It's the broadest growth measure that exists, but it's not what the Fed's dual mandate directly targets -- use it as context for 'is the economy overheating or slowing,' not as a headline number in your policy case.
Fed Funds Effective Rate
The actual interest rate the Fed controls -- this is the lever your team's recommendation is about. Every other indicator in this briefing is evidence for or against moving this rate up, down, or holding it.
10-Year Treasury Yield
The interest rate on 10-year U.S. government debt, set by markets, not the Fed directly. It reflects what investors expect for growth, inflation, and Fed policy over the next decade, and it anchors longer-term borrowing costs like mortgage rates. A useful check on whether markets agree with your read on where policy is headed.
2-Year Treasury Yield
Same idea as the 10-year, but shorter horizon, so it moves more closely with near-term Fed rate expectations. The gap between the 2-year and 10-year yield (the '2s10s spread') going negative has preceded most U.S. recessions since the 1970s -- worth knowing even if you don't build your whole case on it.
Initial Jobless Claims
New unemployment insurance claims filed each week. Because it's weekly instead of monthly, it's the earliest read you'll get on labor market turning points -- claims tend to tick up before the monthly unemployment rate does. Watch the 4-week average rather than any single week, since weekly data is noisy (holidays, weather, one-off layoffs).
University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment
A survey asking regular people how they feel about their finances and the economy. It's forward-looking (feelings can predict future spending) but noisy and sometimes disconnected from what people actually do with their money -- treat it as a soft, secondary signal, not hard evidence.

Second District Regional Data

Empire State Manufacturing Survey (seasonally adjusted diffusion indexes) -- your differentiator against teams running purely national analysis.

IndicatorLatestValueChange
General Business Conditions 2026-07-31 15.6 ▲ 9.90
New Orders 2026-07-31 22.2 ▲ 18.70
Shipments 2026-07-31 24.4 ▲ 15.80
Prices Paid 2026-07-31 52.3 ▼ 8.70
Prices Received 2026-07-31 27.6 ▼ 3.80
Number of Employees 2026-07-31 11.4 ▲ 1.80
6-months-ahead outlook (General Business Conditions): manufacturers expect a reading of 27.9 as of 2026-07-31 -- this is sentiment about the future, not a measured current condition.
What do these mean?
General Business Conditions
The Empire State Survey's headline index -- unlike some composite indexes, this is asked as its own direct question ('is business better or worse this month'), not calculated from the other sub-indexes. Positive means more manufacturers report improving conditions than worsening; it's a diffusion index, so the number itself isn't a percent change, just a balance of opinion.
New Orders
Whether New York manufacturers are seeing more or fewer new orders come in. A forward-looking demand signal for the regional manufacturing sector specifically -- helpful for your Second District angle, but manufacturing is only one slice of the state's economy, so don't generalize it to 'the whole NY economy' without saying so.
Shipments
Whether manufacturers report shipping more or less product out the door this month -- a read on actual output, distinct from New Orders (which measures incoming demand, not what's already been produced and shipped).
Prices Paid
Whether manufacturers are paying more or less for their own inputs (materials, parts, energy). A leading indicator worth watching: rising input costs often show up in consumer prices a few months later if manufacturers pass them on.
Prices Received
Whether manufacturers are able to charge more or less for what they sell. Compare this to Prices Paid -- if input costs are rising faster than what manufacturers can charge, that's margin pressure, which can be a sign firms will either raise prices further or cut costs elsewhere.
Number of Employees
Same series as 'Employment' above -- how many surveyed manufacturers report hiring versus cutting staff. Manufacturing-only, New York-only, and survey-based rather than a hard count, but it's real-time regional color the national payrolls number can't give you.

Market Snapshot

yfinance, ~15-minute delayed.

IndicatorSymbolLastPrior% Chg
S&P 500 ^GSPC 7,757.64 7,709.96 ▲ 0.62%
10Y Treasury Yield (index) ^TNX 4.66 4.67 ▼ 0.21%
US Dollar Index DX-Y.NYB 99.60 99.97 ▼ 0.37%
Crude Oil (WTI) CL=F 78.18 77.29 ▲ 1.15%
Gold GC=F 4,399.70 4,242.00 ▲ 3.72%
2Y Treasury Yield (index) ^UST2Y nan nan — nan%
What do these mean?
S&P 500
A stock index tracking 500 large U.S. companies. Not something the Fed targets, but a useful gauge of how markets are reacting to Fed communication and data surprises -- if you cite a Fed decision's market impact, this is usually the number people mean.
10Y Treasury Yield (index)
Market quote for the 10-year yield -- see 10-Year Treasury Yield above.
US Dollar Index
Measures the dollar's strength against a basket of other major currencies. A stronger dollar tends to make imports cheaper (mild disinflationary pressure) but hurts U.S. exporters. Usually a secondary point unless your analysis specifically involves trade or global spillovers -- don't force it into your core argument if it doesn't fit.
Crude Oil (WTI)
The benchmark U.S. oil price. Feeds directly into headline CPI/PCE (energy is a big chunk of the 'headline' basket) but is excluded from core measures. Useful mainly for explaining *why* headline and core inflation might be telling different stories in a given month.
Gold
Often called a 'safe haven' or inflation hedge, but its price is driven by a lot of things besides U.S. monetary policy (global demand, other central banks, geopolitical risk). Interesting as a sentiment/uncertainty gauge; weak as direct evidence for a rate call -- be cautious about leaning on it in front of judges.
2Y Treasury Yield (index)
Market quote for the 2-year yield -- see 2-Year Treasury Yield above.

FOMC Communication Sentiment

No FOMC statement supplied -- rerun with --fomc-statement to include this section.

Past National Winners -- Case Studies

Public record from federalreserve.gov, paraphrased in our own words -- for studying approach, not for copying into your script.

Knowledge of the Fed, current economy & monetary policy
Accurate information plus a thorough grasp of both basic and sophisticated concepts, every time.
Response to judges' questions
On-point answers under pressure, quick thinking, and persuasive defense when a position gets challenged.
Presentation
Persuasive advocacy, logical and coherent organization, confident delivery from every speaker, no reading from notes.
Research and analysis
Conclusions that are logical and insightful, recommendations backed by relevant data, a wide variety of authoritative sources.
Teamwork and cooperation
Every team member plays a substantial, integral role -- not one or two people carrying the rest.
This is the Fed's actual judging rubric -- full PDF here.
2025
Pace University transcript
New York District · runner-up Harvard College · third UCLA
2024
Princeton University transcript
Philadelphia District · runner-up Harvard College · third University of Virginia
2023
Harvard College
Boston District · runner-up Princeton University · third UCLA
2022
Princeton University
Philadelphia District · runner-up University of North Carolina Wilmington · third Dartmouth College
2021
Pace University
New York District · runner-up University of Pennsylvania · third Dartmouth College
2019
Pace University transcript
New York District · runner-up Harvard College

2025 · Pace University

Framed the entire presentation around one tension: 'an unbalanced dual mandate' where downside labor-market risk outweighed upside inflation risk from new tariffs. Walked output, labor, inflation, and financial conditions, then chose between two explicitly named policy options -- hold, or cut 25 basis points -- landing on the cut.

  • When a judge asked what data would change their balance-sheet recommendation, they didn't just defend the slide -- they said the recommendation had already evolved since they submitted the video, based on money-market data that came out afterward, and explained exactly which new numbers changed their mind.
  • Separated 'labor supply falling' from 'labor demand falling' using several different indicators (quits rate, hiring rate, vacancy ratio) to argue the headline unemployment number was actually understating how much the labor market had weakened -- a subtler read than just quoting the unemployment rate.
  • Broke inflation out by demographic group when discussing who tariffs were hurting most, directly answering the rubric's explicit prompt to cover 'different demographic and socioeconomic groups.'
Why this likely scored well (mapped to the rubric above -- informed analysis, not confirmed judging info):
Response to judges' questions

Explicitly updating their own recommendation live, with the specific new data that changed it, is about as strong a demonstration of 'data-dependent' thinking as is possible in a Q&A -- it shows the analysis was real, not just memorized and defended no matter what.

Knowledge of the Fed, current economy & monetary policy

Fluently distinguished short-run vs. long-run r-star on a cold follow-up question with no slide to lean on -- exactly the 'thorough understanding of sophisticated concepts' the top rubric tier calls for, tested live rather than just rehearsed.

Presentation

Constant explicit signposting ('conclusively... contributing to the downside risks... rounding out the picture...') kept a dense 15 minutes of data organized and easy for judges to follow along in real time.

Source: official Fed-published transcript

2024 · Princeton University

Framed the whole 15 minutes as a single live FOMC-style debate about how fast to keep cutting rates after starting an easing cycle. Walked through growth, then labor, then inflation, then financial conditions, in that order, before landing on a specific vote.

  • Every macro claim was paired with a named source -- a Fed nowcast, a named Fed official's public remarks, or a named economist -- rather than just a bare statistic.
  • Team members openly disagreed with each other on mic (one arguing quantitative tightening still mattered, another arguing it didn't; one citing the Sahm rule as a warning sign, another explaining why it might be a false signal this cycle) instead of presenting a single unified voice with no internal tension.
  • Closed with an actual policy vote -- each of the five members stated aye and gave one sentence of independent reasoning, mirroring how a real FOMC statement reports individual dissents.
Why this likely scored well (mapped to the rubric above -- informed analysis, not confirmed judging info):
Research and analysis

Their evidence wasn't just data points -- it was data points attributed to specific, real, current voices (a named Fed president's public comments, a named academic's recent research). That's precisely what the rubric's top tier asks for: 'a wide variety of authoritative sources,' not just charts.

Teamwork and cooperation

Structuring genuine on-mic disagreement between teammates is a hard way to present, but it's the clearest possible evidence against the rubric's warning sign of 'one or two team members dominate.' Every presenter both made a claim and pushed back on a teammate's claim at least once.

Presentation

The explicit agenda at the very start (what topics, in what order, ending in a vote) gave judges a map before the content even began -- exactly the 'logical and coherent organization' the top rubric tier calls for.

Response to judges' questions

Not directly observable from the presentation alone, but the format itself -- team members trained to argue live against their own teammates' positions -- is a natural way to build the quick, poised rebuttal skill the Q&A round specifically scores.

Source: official Fed-published transcript

2019 · Pace University

Recommended holding the fed funds rate at 1.5-1.75% amid slowing global growth and below-target inflation, but didn't stop at a simple hold -- proposed two specific new policy tools: a form of temporary price-level targeting with a one-year lookback, and a standing repo facility to fix reserve-distribution problems that had caused a rate spike months earlier.

  • Went beyond a yes/no rate call to design two concrete, named policy instruments -- a direct answer to the rubric's call for 'newer approaches as warranted,' not just traditional tools.
  • When the same judge pushed the same underlying question twice from different angles (first on the Phillips curve, then specifically 'has the wedge between wages and prices become structural?'), three different team members built on each other's answers across the exchange instead of one person re-explaining alone -- visible shared command of the material.
  • Proactively named the weakness in their own recommendation (price-level targeting risks an inflation overshoot) instead of waiting for a judge to catch it, then explained the specific design choice (one-year lookback) made to limit that exact risk.
Why this likely scored well (mapped to the rubric above -- informed analysis, not confirmed judging info):
Research and analysis

Proposing two specific, named policy instruments rather than a plain hold/cut/hike decision shows original synthesis of the research, not just reporting it -- a step beyond what most teams likely offered.

Response to judges' questions

Surfacing your own recommendation's weakness before being asked, then explaining the specific design choice made to address it, is a strong signal of genuine understanding rather than a rehearsed pitch -- much harder to fake under follow-up.

Teamwork and cooperation

Multiple team members visibly building on one answer across a multi-turn follow-up, rather than one person carrying the exchange, is exactly the 'substantial and integral role' for every member the rubric rewards.

Source: official Fed-published transcript

2019 head-to-head: Pace University (won) vs. Harvard College (runner-up)

Same day, same judges (Antulio Bomfim, Thomas Lubik, Tom Klitgaard), same economic conditions -- both teams were even asked a near-identical opening question about how Fed policy has affected income and wealth distribution.
Depth of the policy recommendation

Both teams recommended holding rates. Pace went further and proposed two specific, named new tools (a price-level-targeting variant, a standing repo facility) to address weaknesses they identified in the current framework. Harvard's structural proposal (organic balance-sheet growth via 1-2 year Treasuries) addressed one issue rather than two -- a narrower scope of original policy design in the same time slot.

Answering the shared inequality question

Harvard's answer was theoretically solid -- wage growth reaching lower-income workers late in the cycle, a wealth effect concentrated among asset holders. Pace made a similar theoretical case but added a specific, named real-world anchor (a sitting Fed Bank president's own account of a 'Fed Listens' community event) -- grounding the same argument in a concrete, current example rather than theory alone.

Handling repeated follow-up pressure

Both teams were pushed hard on the wage-inflation (Phillips curve) relationship. Pace's exchange involved three different team members adding distinct pieces to the answer across the follow-up chain; Harvard's corresponding exchange was comparatively more concentrated in fewer voices. Neither answer was wrong -- but Pace's version demonstrated shared command of the topic across more of the team.

The gap wasn't really about who knew more economics -- both transcripts show strong, well-cited analysis. It shows up in smaller things: going one layer deeper on policy design, grounding an answer in a specific real-world example instead of pure theory, and spreading follow-up answers across more of the team.
Pace University transcript Harvard College transcript